About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
point -- that speaker boehner showed yesterday in his remarks. he basically said that the president won the election, and he should lead. he basically, he said that he was open to revenues. which is, which many in his own party disagree with. um, so i thought the tone was the right thing. now, you know, you can't expect the speaker to turn on a dime in 24 hours and embrace everything; higher taxes, higher taxes on the wealthy. but i think that privately he's seen the handwriting on the wall, and it makes me very hopeful that we can do something big in the next month and a half. it's a good first step. um, i would say two things, though, in relation to it. when you unpack the speaker's speech, there is a premise that doesn't quite work, and we're going to have to help him move others in the republican party away from it. it's called -- part of his speech he talked about dynamic scoring. this idea that if you cut taxes, you will increase revenues. well, it's about time we debunked that myth. it's a rumpelstiltskin fairy tale, dynamic scoring. if you may remember, rumpelstiltskin was the f
in the washington post this morning. a picture of president obama and john boehner. the upbeat tone was a dramatic shift from recent years when the president and a gop fortified by anti-government activists clashed repeatedly over spending and taxes. if he were to go to yesterday's new york times, they have a listening are at least pictures of the key leaders that will be involved in this process. to show you where they stand specifically on some issues, here is the president saying he will reject any bill that extends tax cuts for the wealthy. here is john boehner who has said raising tax rates is unacceptable and a new revenue should be generated by economic growth spurred by a simpler tax code and that closes loopholes and and deductions. there are some other leaders involved in this project. what do you think they will be able to do to keep the fiscal cliff from happening by the end of the year? that meeting taking place at the white house. here is some video from it. if you are looking at that again and you want to wait and on this topic, you can call in. your confidence on congressional lead
boehner wants a temporary deal that extends all the bush tax cuts and buys more time. democrats don't want to extend attach cuts at all even temporarily. we know going over the cliff would throw us into a recession but experts say if it's reversed within a couple weeks it wouldn't be catastrophic. if the two sides cut a deal referred to as the grand bargain, it's preferable in theory, but with democrats and republicans so far apart, it is unclear what we might have to sacrifice in order to get that bargain. third, the two sides could negotiate around the issue of taxes. this is a little more complicated, unclear how it might work. there would be some sort of trade-off and it seems unlikely. the fourth possible scenario, create a patch to get us through the start of the year, which is a short term extension of the status quo something republicans would like, because it extends the bush tax cuts. president obama did that once in 2010 and is not willing to do it again. finally, we could procrastinate with a little down payment sending the message we will get to it. it would be a small package
to make john boehner's life easier. you know, if ever--you know, you keep seeing this clip of george bush talking about all the political capital he has gained, right? this is the second electoral landslides. >> caller: the first thing that george bush did with that political capital was to privatize social security. that was the beginning of the end. that's when his second term got broken along before all the bad stuff happened. >> stephanie: you talk about this a lot, too, what happens on the sunday shows. >> caller: i took this week off by the way. >> stephanie: i don't know if you saw this, but this is what drives you and i crazy not just about the democratic party but mainstream media. this is the question that was asked of schumer. >> would you like to see the president bring him in for the negotiations over the fiscal cliff. >> caller: shoot me now. >> stephanie: really? >> caller: why? >> stephanie: really the guy that just lost by a landslide. >> caller: first of all, if you were hiring the guy why would you hire the guy? why would you bring aboard the guy whose economic plan was
. boehner will be the speaker of the house unless something unforeseen happens in the next few weeks. he will keep the reins. the republicans lost a few seats, but that is not going to affect him. he ran unopposed in ohio for his own race, and the defining conflict of the republican conference in the 112th congress, the conflict between eric cantor and john boehner the speaker is really behind them from everything we have seen. that is remarkably stable, the first three positions. john boehner will be the next speaker, eric cantor will be the majority leader, and kevin mccarthy will be the majority whip. where it gets interesting is for the conference chairman position. that is currently held by jeb hensarling, who has been a rising star for a while within republican ranks. he was a republican study committee chairman, which is the top conservative position in republican circles in the house. there are two people making a run for conference chairman, tom price, who is also a former committee chairman of the past. he is currently making a bid for conference chairman, and then cathy mcmorr
says he wants to see higher tax rates. john vitter says axel in not. >> -- john boehner says clearly not. >> it is a lot easier to say at this level of generality. it becomes harder to enacted. the number of times of with the head of the cbo, senator so and so would call me up and say i want to talk about tax reform and i would walk in and the head is one talking point which is brought in the base and lower the rate. what are you willing to scale back? mortgage interest, cannot touch that. charitable, cannot touch that. you go down the list. one of the reasons of these new ideas being attractive is a are obscuring what has to be cut back. >> there is still a hard choice there. >> we are not saying we are going to cut out your ability to deduct your mortgage but i will get to keep my ability to deduct my local tax. everything goes into a pot. everybody gets to keep their deductions but you cannot be too greedy about it. it does have to limit the amount they can benefit from it. >> that is the selling point. >> the notion here, can you do this and have the only effect of the wealthiest
coming together, and boehner used the term "comprehensive immigration reform," and so the prospects are better than they were certainly before the election, and they look better than they had. with regards to mexico, i personally don't think there's any issue that is more important for the quality of the relationship at this point. it's one of those issues that is behind sens, whatever issue one's talking about, you know, for many in mexico, not just u.s. immigration policy annoying and irritating, but offensive, the fence, the walling in, the way imgrants, largely mexican communities are talked about, and this would, if there is a policy shift in any major way, i think, would have an important impact. more as important, however, i think if one looks at the immigration issue, and i'm not going to go into details now, but it's also an economic issue. i mean, immigration and manuel will probably talk a little about that as well, but in other words, just the fact is that if you can bring 6 million mexicans out of the shadows and pried some legal status to them, they should earn more mo
week. host: "the baltimore sun" has a story, "boehner ways next moves." this is from "the wall street journal." "post office hint of gop path." host: "she fit a profile." so, more on leadership, which both sides will be voting for this week when they return to washington on who will be their leaders. so, we will continue to watch that story for u.s. well. part of the mix to avoid the fiscal cliff is these jobless benefits. that is the headline in the politics and policy section of "the washington post." "over 2 million americans could lose their jobless benefits before the end of the year." host: susan, michigan, what do you think? should we cut medicare and social security? caller: absolutely not. absolutely not. host: why not? caller: i am a woman who has finally reached the age of social security. all the years the work, this money was taken out of my paycheck. i was told from a very young age that when i reached a fine age of the period where you retire and you can get social security, that all the money that i paid in would be refunded to me. this money is not to be touched, not
was willing to sign on the dotted line to that compromise with john boehner and eric cantor a year ago. we remain ready, willing and able to compromise. the american people have an unquenchable thirst for solutions. they have an unquenchable thirst for compromise and consensus. at that press conference yesterday it was nancy pelosi notwithstanding what governor christie has said. it was nancy pelosi who said we remain ready, willing and able to find a compromise. to find common ground with republicans to avoid the fiscal cliff. we need solutions and not sequestration. >> jonathan karl did an interview with paul ryan and what paul ryan said in this is essentially that, that the president doesn't have a mandate. karl said he won some 300 some electoral votes, every battleground state except for north carolina. does president obama have a mandate and, and he said no, i don't think so. because then nancy pelosi would be in charge of the house of representatives. and she's not. do you think that he's got a point? >> you know what has a mandate? solutions have a han date. this election was about
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)